The 768GB Flash Storage $1300 club

[vannibombonato]

Another benefit from choosing 768ssd is that you will get to use power nap. I'm curious if you will get this with fusion drive (?)

----------



The fusion won't be faster than the 768 ssd. It may be the same speed while using the ssd- but just a fraction of what most people have on their hdd will fit there.

So maybe a bit eccentric but also mighty fine

The fusion, if used in its full capacity (that is, filling it beyond the 128gb of SSD) will be SLOWER than the SSD, way slower, no doubt about it.

What we're discussing is that for way less of the price of the Apple option you can have a bigger and faster external SSD drive.

 

[smr]

Oh certainly yes, but if that is what's worrying you it also zeroes the chances that you stop working if the drive fails, as you'd still would have your iMac and could work with your backup, while if something internal fails, goodbye iMac.
But wait, if you are worried about reliability and can't risk your work to stop, i suggest you buy TWO identical iMacs in case one of them fails...just as smart.

Not sure it's the right angle you want to pursue in justifying yourself buying it is something rational...

----------



Just saw it...really, if you think it's smart to buy the Apple thing because of reliability, you're just fooling yourself.

That is incorrect – the hard drive on my 24-inch early 2008 iMac failed a few months ago. Fortunately I had a Time Machine backup and used that to setup an external FireWire drive to boot from, and my system now runs from that (although I dislike running from an external boot drive – see below).

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I have (irrational?) concerns over drive failure. I know (from experience) that drives can fail, so I take care to have backups, and I’m keen to select options that REDUCE the risk of drive failures in future. (I’m not, as you imply, trying to unrealistically ELIMINATE this risk, just REDUCE it where possible, as I prefer to minimize the stress and hassle caused by drive failure.)

And this is the problem I have with your black and white comparison of an internal 768GB Apple drive vs the LaCie 1TB external drive. In your view the LaCie has all the advantages and the Apple all of the disadvantages i.e. you have to be 'stupid' to choose the Apple SSD drive over the LaCie option.

The LaCie does have some clear advantages over the Apple solution:
- It is UKP167 (USD270) cheaper (UKP749 vs UKP916 – I get the university discount on Apple but not LaCie, and both come with 3yr repair cover)
- It has more capacity (but then I reckon I need 600-700GB to cover my needs for the next 5 years, so the 768GB suits me fine)
- it is faster (RAID0)

But there are (in my opinion, I know you disagree) some disadvantages to the LaCie option:
- as flynz4 pointed out, one worry about an external boot drive is the very real risk of 'inadvertent surprise removal' ie. me/the kids/the cat accidentally pulling out the Thunderbolt cable. I prefer to avoid that.
- as I have pointed out, the LaCie is actually two 512GB SSDs in RAID0, so a greater risk (not quite twice but close) of drive failure (a risk I am trying to reduce)
- the LaCie solution means yet another box on my desk (and I prefer less clutter)

The first disadvantage could be addressed by getting an Apple Fusion drive and then only using the 128GB SSD for OSX/apps (i.e. boot internally) with the Aperture library on an external 1TB SSD. But this would (for me as I get the edu discount) be MORE expensive and would not address the second two disadvantages. This option also has three drives, so an even greater chance one will fail!

We each have different needs and worries, so we each place different priorities on these advantages and disadvantages. I’m sure the external solution meets your needs and I am not trying to convince you otherwise (I don’t think you are stupid).

But I have different needs and worries. The extra UKP167 cost of the Apple internal solution is, for me, justified by the peace of mind it brings me, as it means I can avoid the disadvantages I listed above. But YMMV.

 

[vannibombonato]

That is incorrect – the hard drive on my 24-inch early 2008 iMac failed a few months ago. Fortunately I had a Time Machine backup and used that to setup an external FireWire drive to boot from, and my system now runs from that (although I dislike running from an external boot drive – see below).

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons I have (irrational?) concerns over drive failure. I know (from experience) that drives can fail, so I take care to have backups, and I’m keen to select options that REDUCE the risk of drive failures in future. (I’m not, as you imply, trying to unrealistically ELIMINATE this risk, just REDUCE it where possible, as I prefer to minimize the stress and hassle caused by drive failure.)

And this is the problem I have with your black and white comparison of an internal 768GB Apple drive vs the LaCie 1TB external drive. In your view the LaCie has all the advantages and the Apple all of the disadvantages i.e. you have to be 'stupid' to choose the Apple SSD drive over the LaCie option.

The LaCie does have some clear advantages over the Apple solution:
- It is UKP167 (USD270) cheaper (UKP749 vs UKP916 – I get the university discount on Apple but not LaCie, and both come with 3yr repair cover)
- It has more capacity (but then I reckon I need 600-700GB to cover my needs for the next 5 years, so the 768GB suits me fine)
- it is faster (RAID0)

But there are (in my opinion, I know you disagree) some disadvantages to the LaCie option:
- as flynz4 pointed out, one worry about an external boot drive is the very real risk of 'inadvertent surprise removal' ie. me/the kids/the cat accidentally pulling out the Thunderbolt cable. I prefer to avoid that.
- as I have pointed out, the LaCie is actually two 512GB SSDs in RAID0, so a greater risk (not quite twice but close) of drive failure (a risk I am trying to reduce)
- the LaCie solution means yet another box on my desk (and I prefer less clutter)

The first disadvantage could be addressed by getting an Apple Fusion drive and then only using the 128GB SSD for OSX/apps (i.e. boot internally) with the Aperture library on an external 1TB SSD. But this would (for me as I get the edu discount) be MORE expensive and would not address the second two disadvantages. This option also has three drives, so an even greater chance one will fail!

We each have different needs and worries, so we each place different priorities on these advantages and disadvantages. I’m sure the external solution meets your needs and I am not trying to convince you otherwise (I don’t think you are stupid).

But I have different needs and worries. The extra UKP167 cost of the Apple internal solution is, for me, justified by the peace of mind it brings me, as it means I can avoid the disadvantages I listed above. But YMMV.

Lots of reasonable rationales, which are obviously subjective but each one of us is different.

Just a couple of clarifications:
1- When i say "goodbye imac" to counter your opinion that if the internal HD fails you loose the iMac (vs. the external option in which, as you as well confirm, allows you to keep on working), i mean that you need to SEND the whole iMac for repair, you can't just open it up and send the SSD for repair.
2- The external SSD not only is cheaper and bigger but also faster, probably (no-one can say now) as much as 40-50% faster.
3- I would never say you or anyone else is "stupid" because you buy the internal SSD. I would tell you you're stupid if you were saying your buying it because you need more SSD gbs, but if you tell me you're buying it (i.e.) because you like your desk better with nothing on it except the iMac, it's perfectly reasonable. 99% of people do not value that the price you're going to pay, but its subjective and no-one can tell you you're stupid for that, as you are the only one who knows how much you are going to enjoy a cleaner desk.


Net, to each its own.

 

[smr]

Lots of reasonable rationales, which are obviously subjective but each one of us is different.

Just a couple of clarifications:
1- When i say "goodbye imac" to counter your opinion that if the internal HD fails you loose the iMac (vs. the external option in which, as you as well confirm, allows you to keep on working), i mean that you need to SEND the whole iMac for repair, you can't just open it up and send the SSD for repair.
2- The external SSD not only is cheaper and bigger but also faster, probably (no-one can say now) as much as 40-50% faster.

Then, to each its own.

I did say this.

 

[vannibombonato]

I did say this.

missed sorry

Enjoy the drive, you lucky rich man

PS
I bet sooner or later you'll add also the external SSD

PPS
If in a month or so i get pissed because the internal drive starts spinning i promise to revamp this thread and offer you a beer

 

[smr]

missed sorry

Enjoy the drive, you lucky rich man

PS
I bet sooner or later you'll add also the external SSD

PPS
If in a month or so i get pissed because the internal drive starts spinning i promise to revamp this thread and offer you a beer

I'm going to be a good bit poorer when Apple charges me

I'm planning to add an external LaCie 6TB 2big Thunderbolt drive (but configured to RAID1 i.e. 2x3GB) for my music and video library. (This will be RAID1 as I won't have room to back-up it and the SSD via Time Capsule.)

Again, less clutter is my the least of my three concerns...

 

[animatedude]

for those who ordered the iMac with 768GB flash,please report here your experiences!

 

[torana355]

I'm going to be a good bit poorer when Apple charges me

I'm planning to add external LaCie 6TB 2big Thunderbolt drive (but configured to RAID1 i.e. 2x3GB) for my music and video library. (This will be RAID1 as I won't have room to back-up it and the SSD via Time Capsule.)

Raid 1 should not be used as backup!! Raid is for redundancy only.

 

[smr]

Raid 1 should not be used as backup!! Raid is for redundancy only.

The SSD (OSX/Apps/Docs/Aperture) will be backed-up at regular intervals via Time Capsule.

I already have my 800+ CD-rips backed up on DVD-R. Ripped Blu-rays are too big for me to bother properly backing up (I have the original BDs), so I will just rely on the redundancy of RAID1 to minimise the impact of drive failure on my movie collection.

 

[iMcLovin]

Raid 1 should not be used as backup!! Raid is for redundancy only.

Why shouldn't raid 1 be used for backup? If you have time capsule to a 2big 6tb and raid1 you are double secured?

 

[torana355]

Why shouldn't raid 1 be used for backup? If you have time capsule to a 2big 6tb and raid1 you are double secured?

No, raid 1 is not as secure as people think. For example if 1 of the drives fail and you replace that drive, the other drive is put under stress while it copies all it data to the new drive, while this is happening the second drive can fail leaving you without all your files.

----------

The SSD (OSX/Apps/Docs/Aperture) will be backed-up at regular intervals via Time Capsule.

I already have my 800+ CD-rips backed up on DVD-R. Ripped Blu-rays are too big for me to bother properly backing up (I have the original BDs), so I will just rely on the redundancy of RAID1 to minimise the impact of drive failure on my movie collection.

Cool, it is hard to backup large video libraries.

 

[iMcLovin]

No, raid 1 is not as secure as people think. For example if 1 of the drives fail and you replace that drive, the other drive is put under stress while it copies all it data to the new drive, while this is happening the second drive can fail leaving you without all your files.

----------



Cool, it is hard to backup large video libraries.

Good point. Chances are slim though for that to happen

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

I'm going to be a good bit poorer when Apple charges me

I'm planning to add an external LaCie 6TB 2big Thunderbolt drive (but configured to RAID1 i.e. 2x3GB) for my music and video library. (This will be RAID1 as I won't have room to back-up it and the SSD via Time Capsule.)

Again, less clutter is my the least of my three concerns...

Can you tell me more about this LaCie drive your going to add?

 

[torana355]

Good point. Chances are slim though for that to happen

When your files are critical even a slim chance is to much. It depends how much you value your files i guess.

 

[mganai]

It's too bad the only non-Fusion SSD option is so expensive. Would it be possible to take one of the new iMacs to a technician and swap the HDD out and put in an SSD? Want my dualboot to take advantage of the SSD (I hear it doesn't under Fusion), and to have an HDD as well while bypassing Fusion.

 

[pubjoe]

I'm not a huge fan of the fusion drive either. It's great for having a lot of storage without thinking about it, and two years ago when intel first introduced the underlying technology, I would have loved it even more. Today, I expect more.

There's a lot I do like, but what I don't like about it is the constant management that's going to be happening once the drive is getting full. We'll end up with a mechanical disk that's actually grinding away more than it would without the SSD. Also, automatic management can only be so intelligent. Often it'll be detrimental, for instance with data that's used procedurally. Let's use an example of playing a new game. When you play through level 1 for the first time, data is loaded to ram. At some point as you die, replay and explore the areas of level 1, the FD software decides 'this is popular data' and rearranges the data on both the SSD and HDD. Shortly after this happens, you get to level 2 and the previous events are repeated. You never return to level 1 so the data is now useless, and once you complete level 2, there is more useless data on the SSD, and so on. By the time you complete the game, the FD software has wasted many many finite disk cycles in managing data and it may have never actually benefitted you if each initial level load came from data that was stored on the HDD at the time. You can end up wasting the life of both drives and having much more grinding noise going on in the background than you would have had from a regular hdd.

Games are just one easy example, any procedural work would also apply.

It's not all bad, there are obviously many scenarios where the fusion drive would be brilliant, and the cost saving would have been more appealing two years ago, but today - now that I'm used to using a decent sized single ssd - I don't want it.

So I understand why people are buying the better option. Sadly Apple's ssd price is much too high for me, so I'm going to self upgrade with my existing 512GB.

 

[hfg]

If you think the Apple price is high ... take a look at this one:

http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technolog...e=UTF8&qid=1354756099&sr=1-1&keywords=1TB+ssd

OCZ Technology 1 TB Octane SATA 6 GB/s 2.5-Inch Performance Solid State Drive with Max 460 MB/s Read/Max 330 MB/s Write (OCT1-25SAT3-1T)

only $ 2655.02 !

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

If you think the Apple price is high ... take a look at this one:

http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technolog...e=UTF8&qid=1354756099&sr=1-1&keywords=1TB+ssd

OCZ Technology 1 TB Octane SATA 6 GB/s 2.5-Inch Performance Solid State Drive with Max 460 MB/s Read/Max 4 KB Write (OCT1-25SAT3-1T)

only $ 2655.02 !

I'd like to see some real world test on this drive.

 

[gnasher729]

The fusion, if used in its full capacity (that is, filling it beyond the 128gb of SSD) will be SLOWER than the SSD, way slower, no doubt about it.

Actually, most people will not notice any difference compared to an SSD drive. Except the _huge_ difference in price and/or capacity.

That I wouldn't worry about at all, it is very rare for SSD to fail, unlike mechanical hard drives with spinning platters.

I thought it was the opposite, with SSD drives failing without any warning. Mostly through faults in the controller chips.

yeah exactly, a 250 or 512GB version for $400-600 would be common sense. It's clear with the fusion drive you can put in 1 ssd and 1 regular hdd, so why not offer those alternatives to the users, so they can have a 250GB pure ssd for performance/os related and a 1TB regular hdd for photos etc..

Because a Fusion drive has the advantage that it always uses 97% of the expensive space on the SSD drive, unlike a 250 GB SSD drive that is manually controlled by the user, and that Fusion can put those files and those portions of files onto SSD that actually make things faster, and not those files or packages that the user _thinks_ make things faster.

 

[hfg]

I'd like to see some real world test on this drive.

haha ... I'd like to see .. one of these drives in my new iMac

You can save a few bucks by buying it at Newegg.com ... only $ 2250

 

[Rezox]

I did it!

 

[smr]

Can you tell me more about this LaCie drive your gong to add?

http://www.lacie.com/uk/products/product.htm?id=10573

http://store.apple.com/uk/product/H8338ZM/A/lacie-6tb-2big-thunderbolt-series-raid-hard-drive?fnode=5f&fs=m.tsConnections%3Dthunderbolt

 

[inscrewtable]

My desktop is in my bedroom and if I can reduce the noise a spinning drive makes (and an SSD drive is silent) then its worth it. If Apple sold the 512 GB SSD, I admit I would go for that one instead.

You could use an external drive for music and other stuff that does not need a fast drive, something like the newertech voyager q dock, which having no fan is completely silent combined with a WD caviar green drive which is barely audible and you are running pretty well noiselessly. Plus you can plug another external into the dock for a backup.

 

[MatthewAMEL]

Why shouldn't raid 1 be used for backup? If you have time capsule to a 2big 6tb and raid1 you are double secured?

RAID is not backup! It's availability.

If the iTunes or iPhoto library on your RAID1 device becomes corrupt, accidentally gets deleted, trashed by an update, etc., RAID offers no protection or ability to revert to an older version.

It should also be apparent that you never use the same device for Time Machine that you are using for your data. If that device fails, now you have no data and no access to your backup.

The 'best practice' rule for your data is 3-2-1

3 copies of the data
2 copies locally (one production, one on-site backup)
1 copy off-site (crashplan, carbonite, etc.)

 

[flynz4]

The 'best practice' rule for your data is 3-2-1

3 copies of the data
2 copies locally (one production, one on-site backup)
1 copy off-site (crashplan, carbonite, etc.)

Very good advice. I would also add that all of this must operate automatically with zero human interaction... because humans are always the weak link.

/Jim